MediaWiki talk:Bad image list

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The images listed on MediaWiki:Bad image list are prohibited by technical means from being displayed inline on pages, besides specified exceptions. Images on the list have normally been used for widespread vandalism where user blocks and page protections are impractical.


Making requests - Requests for additions, removals, or exceptions may be made on this page. Any administrator can make changes to the list. If there is no response after a reasonable time, consider repeating a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.
Posting to the list - The format is as follows: Only bulleted list items (lines starting with "*") are considered. The first link on a line must be the link to the high-risk image. It is recommended that you use an initial colon in this link, so people can view this page without seeing all the restricted images. Any subsequent links on the same line are exceptions, i.e. articles where that image is allowed to be displayed inline. Text outside of links is ignored and can be used for comments. Piped links cannot be used. Please check the spelling of potential duplicate images before removing.
Image description page - A bot will place {{Restricted use}} on the image description page. This will advise users how to request that the image to be allowed on articles (that is, to expand the except list for it).
Removal from the list - When removing deleted images from the list, please double-check that the relevant image talk page has been deleted as well.

Restricted-use media list[edit]

Three years ago, a consensus (now in the archive) was reached to rename this list, so I reopened bug 14281, which had been about this same page. In all honesty, there was no certain consensus reached about what the name of the list should be, just that it needed to be renamed. The name "Restricted-use media list" (since images may not be the only restricted media) appears to be the highest and best contender for the new name. Recently, as shown by the code review at, the bug is said to have been fixed and this list page can now be redirected to a page of choice. If there are no objections, I will place an {{Editprotected}} template to move and redirect this page in a few days. In case anyone goes ahead with the rename, be sure to leave a redirect so mediawiki will be able to use it to find the new page. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 16:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
PS. There have been several discussions about this, the first of which appears to have been in this talk page's very first archive, here, which took place about seven years ago.


There has been an alteration in the MediaWiki software, as shown here, that allows this page to be moved and redirected. This was brought about by several discussions on this talk page (now in the archives) and by bug 14281, which has been open for nearly five years on this particular subject. As noted above, the name of choice for this page appears to be:

  • MediaWiki:Restricted-use media list

Please rename this page, and be sure to leave behind a redirect so the software will be able to find the new page. Thank you in advance! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 23:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Question: Has there been any discussion at a centralised venue on-wiki? This page receives quite a lot of use, so we should probably have a discussion at a place where more people will be watching before we move the page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Your caution is understandable. As far as I know, this has been discussed extensively here on this talk page and on the bug report page. I am unaware of any discussions other than that. Perhaps we should give it a little more time. We've waited this long so a few more days wait will do no harm. What I can do for now is subdue the Ep template for a bit longer to see if more discussion is generated. --Paine Ellsworth (talkcontribs) 07:56, 19 March 2013‎ (UTC)
I think I'll start an RfC here and advertise it in a few likely places - hopefully that should do the trick. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that should help a lot. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 08:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain why we would need a redirect on this page? A) most Wikipedians save the technical minded would never reach this page (and even then only the talkpage itself where the real stuff happens) and B) this is embedded directly into the software itself, and I think the software is better at updating its cache than reading from a redirect. I'd much rather avoid breaking the software with a redirect. TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 09:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Good question! Frankly, I'm not entirely sure "why", but it has something to do with other wikis, I think. Anyway, the most recent bug discussion at bug 14281, comment 44 by Platonides, is where talk first begins about the redirect. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
PS. I just reread gerrit:53190 and it reads... "Allow the bad image list to be redirected elsewhere." So the idea appears to be to redirect this list to a different pagename that an admin on any given wiki would be able to alter. PS added by – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX!

It has now may soon become technically possible to rename MediaWiki:Bad image list. Should we move the page to MediaWiki:Restricted-use media list? If not, would another name be better? Or is the name fine as it is? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support name change to MediaWiki:Restricted-use media list. While over the years the sure consensus was for the need to change the pagename, what name to change it to has escaped consensus. I feel that this name is best-suited for this page, since the usage of the images is "restricted", and since there may be other media besides images that require restricted use. This media is not intrinsically "bad" nor should it be listed as such. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 08:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support move to MediaWiki:Restricted-use media list or similar. The page's current name is wildly inaccurate, as I've commented in the past. Tim Starling's 2009 response was downright bizarre, and I'm thankful that we've finally moved past it. —David Levy 10:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support name change to MediaWiki:Restricted-use media list. The images are not, they are restricted, suggested name change is good. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support change as suggested above. Long overdue. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support name change to MediaWiki:Restricted-use media list. It's accurate, concise and objective, like all of Wikipedia should be.--TyrS 11:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support proposed rename. I've made countless comments on this issue over the years, and while I don't think I was initially in favour I long ago came to the conclusion that the namechange needs to happen. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support proposed rename. "Bad" is a loaded term. I've seen plenty of images here that I consider "bad" even though they're G-rated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • comment not to spoil anyone's party but the change in mediawiki has not been approved yet. The bug will be marked fixed when (and if) it is fixed. Cheers Bawolff (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    I for one find that acceptable. After all, this is obviously not an easy "fix", and there are important considerations, like the impact on sister wikis' and their own "restricted-use media lists". After all this time I remain hopeful that there will be a positive outcome. It's my fault for jumping the gun; the positive words I read at the bug report and on the code page gave me the impression that it was all over but the shouting. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 17:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    For my part, I should have checked the technical status before I posted the RfC. Sorry about that. It's probably about time that I learned how this code review business works, anyway. I've tweaked the RfC intro text to make it clearer that the feature is not yet live. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Super-strong neutral: This is really inside baseball. Even people who are active on Wikimedia wikis barely know about this feature or its name. It makes almost no difference to me what this page is called. (Tangentially, I personally think the list should be a gallery [bugzilla:24147], as a list of images is not very easy to browse.) If the name is changed, my only comment would be to ensure that surrounding documentation is also updated. Otherwise, I really have difficulty expressing how much of a non-issue I think this page's name is. I'm glad that Platonides seems to have been able to cut the Gordian knot (such that it was). I'll push to see that gerrit:53190 get approved, as I think it's a reasonable change and a reasonable compromise here. It'll likely be another three or four weeks before this change is live on the English Wikipedia, however. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    "Bad image list" obfuscates the feature's purpose, even if "bad" isn't taken literally. An image's inclusion reflects a history of vandalism, not an assessment of its intrinsic qualities. Images widely regarded as offensive are among the most likely targets, but a seemingly innocuous image can be abused just as easily (as part of a meme, for example).
    The page's name has caused confusion with non-trivial implications. For example, during the image filter debates, the list's existence was cited as evidence that Wikipedia already evaluates images and deems certain ones "bad"/objectionable. —David Levy 22:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your support of gerrit:53190, MZMcBride! As you are neutral about what this page is named, so am I neutral about whether it should be a list or a gallery. One thing about all this that shouldn't be missed, though, is that our ability to change the name of this page means that if one day it becomes a gallery, it can easily be modified to a name like MediaWiki:Restricted-use media gallery or similar. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 17:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: MediaWiki:Restricted media list is less wordy, less jargony, and possibly easier to understand for a non-native speaker, and I would suggest it as an alternative to "Restricted-use." But either way, support. Fishal (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with MZM. The page could be called MediaWiki:Flying pink monkeys as far as I'm concerned, so long as it has the same functionality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support name change to MediaWiki:Restricted-use media list. More accurate name that will be less confusing for those that stumble over it for the first time. Granted, this will not be the most important decision ever made, but a reasonable one. --Atlasowa (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - these images aren't "bad" - each of them is (probably) a good image for some topic which our encyclopedia should cover. They are "restricted use" - that is, use of these images is under strict control, for they have a high chance of being abused. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral and bikeshed. I agree with Fishal that MediaWiki:Restricted media list sounds better. --cesarb (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'm with Baseball Bugs on this. It's not really a bikeshed issue to me, because I think that using the term "bad image" to describe... well... a collection of images primarily consisting of genitalia sends the wrong kind of message. The message needs to be "people are abusing the use of these images by putting them in unrelated articles", and not "porn is bad kids". This is also Sven Manguard 22:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I meant that I was bikeshedding (Restricted-use versus Restricted), not that this whole discussion is a bikeshed. Sorry if I was not clear enough. --cesarb (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support MediaWiki:Restricted media list. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Have none of the originators heard of WP:BRD? VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 08:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    I have, and sometimes it ain't easy to be bold!-) – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 09:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    Certainly if it's not possible. It's not (yet) technically possible for a user to rename an interface page. Cheers, theFace 19:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support rename, but I think "Restricted-use media" sounds awkward. Would prefer: Restricted media list, Restricted media or Restricted files. The name should at least contain the word "Restricted" to emphasize its connection with Template:Restricted use. Cheers, theFace 19:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I think moving it from "bad" to "restricted" makes sense. I think MediaWiki:Restricted-use media list sounds more clear about what the page handles, but that's only because it sounds more clear to me. However, I don't think it's a big deal what it actually gets changed to in terms of those small details. - SudoGhost 03:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • How about "abused images" or "shock images"? —rybec 03:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The use of the images are restricted, so I think that would be the best descriptor. I don't think abused or shock works as well, because that makes an assumption about why they've been added which may or may not be accurate, but more importantly doesn't give as concise a description as to the function of this page. The images are restricted, why they're restricted may vary, but "Restricted image list" makes it clear what the purpose of the list is, whereas "abused images list" or "shock images list" makes it seem as though it's just a collection of shock images without describing the actual purpose of the page, which is to restrict the use of the images.. - SudoGhost 05:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "Shock images list" is particularly bad as not all the entries on the list are shock images, and it is not necessarily the case that all the images have been abused. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. "Badness" depends on context. Rivertorch (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Please call it Index of Explicit Media. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
If an image, whatever it may depict, is used for vandalism, one possibility to combat the vandalism is to put it on this page. Almost all media on this list are explicit, but there are a few exceptions. Currently, I count 15 of them:
5 swastikas: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; 2 logos: 6, 7; 4 tame pics: 8, 9, 10, 11; 3 weird pics: 12, 13, 14; and 1 gif which should give you seizures or something: 15 (seriously, what is this??).
Cheers, theFace 20:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't think of that. Thank you. In that case, I'd support List of restricted-use media or some variation thereof, with "restricted" instead of "explicit". §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Whatever per cesarb and MZM. Seriously not at all important. ~ Amory (utc) 04:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Hardly important in the grand scheme of things... MisterShiney 14:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure I've never really understood the uproar that the title causes within the minds of some, but if the technical means to move the page to a more accurate description is available, I see no harm in a rename. One less thorn in the side. --auburnpilot talk 19:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Note: A fuller history of this controversial change can be found at I14e35ef2. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


Can anybody bring this discussion up-to-date? What is the status? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 07:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@Platonides, Paine Ellsworth, FreeRangeFrog, Bawolff, and MZMcBride: Gerrit 53189 was "Adandoned" I have requested that it be un-abandoned.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough15:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC).

Thank you, Rich – I wondered about that – thank you very much for your request to un-abandon Gerrit 53189! – Paine  16:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that this feature ("Bad image list") should just be killed. It's of dubious value, especially now that we have other anti-abuse features. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be supported by the other devs, MZMcBride, since this update has once again been abandoned (by the same dev) today. Another dev, Parent5446, left an interesting message in May at the other update, gerrit:53190, and appears to disagree with the above consensus. So how can this feature be "killed" and what "other anti-abuse features" would replace it? – Paine  17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Paine.

I assume AbuseFilter filters would be sufficient here. The input mechanism would definitely change, as would the user-facing behavior. We could, for example, apply a filter only to users with fewer than 1,000 edits. And edits adding disallowed images could be prevented entirely rather than the current behavior of allowing page saves and not rendering the image inline.

Removing the bad image list from MediaWiki core would probably happen after switching all the bad image lists on Wikimedia wikis to AbuseFilter filters. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

We try and call it the 'edit filter'; it suffers the same problem. In my opinion, AbuseFilter is not suited to the task. With maintenance and exceptions, you'd be better off with this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi zzuuzz. In a technical world where accuracy and precision matter, I'll stick with calling the extension by its actual name. What does "suffers what same problem" mean and why do you believe a tool such as AbuseFilter would be unsuited to this task? Preventing "bad" edits, such as adding shock images to unrelated articles, is exactly what AbuseFilter is intended to be used for, as I understand it. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi MZM. I am not really riding the re-naming pony so will leave the acceptability of the name to others (the same problem, IMO). Me, I recognise the hassle in renaming stuff .. PC sarcasm doesn't come across well on the Internet. The abuse filter would be ideal for filtering a small number of limited applications of certain images.. I suspect we may even have a couple of examples. I can just see it being over-complex for the amount of images and exceptions, and turnover, we have currently. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hah! Fair enough. A mix of Poe's law and TwoHardProblems, I suppose. :-)

I agree that AbuseFilter wasn't exactly designed with this use-case in mind and using a filter to replicate the bad image list's functionality would be a bit awkward. There would be trade-offs: we'd gain a lot more flexibility in enforcing and monitoring bad image additions, but the input mechanism would be even more obscure and would be less monitored by admins (I think AbuseFilter still doesn't integrate with Special:Watchlist or Special:RecentChanges).

It might make sense to do a pros/cons evaluation of making a switch. My personal view, as I expressed over in Phabricator Maniphest, is leaning toward this feature being too weird for inclusion in MediaWiki core. It would help my argument if I gathered actual usage statistics across Wikimedia wikis, but my vague inkling is that the English Wikipedia and a few other large wikis use this feature way more than most sites. That said, the counter-argument to my view is that there's virtue in having a simpler feature that's much easier to understand and use than AbuseFilter. Plus a built-in feature such as bad image list doesn't require installing an additional extension. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I dumped some thoughts here: mw:Requests for comment/Bad image list. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


I am boldly removing swastikas from three talk page sigs Talk:Interstate 75 (already done), Talk:Son of a bitch, Talk:Bitch (insult)/Archive 1.

These can therefore be removed from the appropriate exception list.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough22:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

Protected edit request on 1 August 2015[edit]

Please remove File:Didi_Marika_4.jpg from this list (appears as a red link). Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Note that there's a bot that removes redlinks once in a while, and they don't really do any harm. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


File:Smegma Penis02.jpg so that it can be used on the Smegma page. Thanks in advance! -- (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add actual target for restricted image being redirected on commons[edit]

Currently, File:Circpn.jpg is listed on the bad image list here on WP as one would think it should be but because that file name is actually a redirect on Commons to the true target file, c:File:Circpn - circumcised penis.jpg, it is possible to get around this list's intended "masking" behavior locally simply by using the redirect's file name.

I just had an anon troublemaker exploit this over on Wikisource who had replaced a handful of the standard box banner images before another admin managed to blocked the ip so I figured best to note this "bug"? here as well -- in short -- restricted images can still be rendered locally if the target image has a redirect and that redirect's file name is used instead of the actual targeted file name. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Does it work similarly the other direction? For instance say that File:A.jpg is on the bad list and that File:B.jpg is a redirect to File:A.jpg, is it possible to get around the list by linking to File:B.jpg instead? -mattbuck (Talk) 08:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I tried to describe -- go ahead and link to File:Circpn.jpg for yourself (just preview it in any edit session without saving the edit). Even though that particular file name is listed as restricted here on WP, it will still render because it's not the actual file name that truly hosts the image on commons (e.g. it's a redirect). -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
From what I understood, to use the terms of my example, you are saying that File:B (the redirect) is on the bad list, but File:A (the image) is not, and that allows you to link to A. I was asking if A was on the bad list and you link to B. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have disabled the request as it appears that discussion is ongoing. Please reactivate if necessary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I'm not arguing here, I fully endorse the change, I'm just asking about the technicalities of how the list handles redirects in the first place. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)